 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Cowles Publ'g Co. v. Kootenai County Bd. of County Comm'rs, Docket No. 32195, Docket No. 32206, 2007 Opinion No. 74,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, May 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: E-mail correspondence between county employee and county prosecutor were public records and not exempt from disclosure under Idaho Code Ann. § 9-340C, where the e-mails were informal communications between employee and her supervisor, unrelated to personnel administration. Employee had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the e-mails.
|
|||||
| State v. Cheeney, Docket No. 32625, 2007 Opinion No. 25,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, May 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While defendant worked for a doctor's office, he embezzled over $ 200,000. Upon defendant's plea of guilty to grand theft, the doctor was entitled to recover $ 220,589.55 in restitution under Idaho Code Ann. § 19-5304. The bank and the insurance company's collection agency were not "victims" who were authorized to receive restitution.
|
|||||
| Doe v. City of Elk River, Docket No. 32543, 2007 Opinion No. 75,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, May 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court properly granted a city summary judgment on an attractive nuisance claim because the city's shed was not dangerous or attractive due to its condition or structure; rather, the children had been lured there by a perpetrator. Attorney fees against counsel for prosecuting the appeal were appropriate under Idaho App. R. 11.1.
|
|||||
| State v. Salois, Docket No. 32822, 2007 Opinion No. 26,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, May 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The granting of defendant's motion to suppress the physical evidence and her statements made to police during a traffic stop was proper because reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle for failure to have license plates was absent if a temporary registration was properly displayed and there was evidence that the permit was visible to the officer.
|
|||||
| State v. Lopez, Docket No. 32757, 2007 Opinion No. 27,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, May 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's motion to dismiss his criminal case for an alleged violation of right to a speedy trial under U.S. Const. amend. VI and Idaho Const. art. 1, § 13 was proper because defendant contributed in some measure to the delay, in part by indicating that he would waive his speedy trial rights and by failing to demand a prompt trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Williamson, Docket No. 33068, 2007 Opinion No. 28,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, May 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for exceeding the speed limit in violation of Idaho Code Ann. § 49-654(2) was proper because laser speed detection devices were generally reliable and their results were permitted to be admitted into evidence in Idaho courts. Further, the evidence indicated that defendant's vehicle was traveling in excess of the speed limit.
|
|||||
| State v. Hayes, Docket No. 32947, 2007 Opinion No. 29,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion for a new trial under Idaho Crim. R. 34 and Idaho Code Ann. § 19-2406 should have been granted based on newly discovered evidence because an alibi witness had not been contacted, the testimony was material to impeachment and an alibi, diligent efforts were used to secure the witness, and it would have likely caused an acquittal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
